[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709121537190.4067@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 15:39:12 -0700 (PDT)
From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
dkegel@...gle.com, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Daniel Phillips <phillips@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/3] Recursive reclaim (on __PF_MEMALLOC)
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
> The thing I don't much like about your patches is the addition of more
> of these global reserve type things in the allocators. They kind of
> suck (not your code, just the concept of them in general -- ie. including
> the PF_MEMALLOC reserve). I'd like to eventually reach a model where
> reclaimable memory from a given subsystem is always backed by enough
> resources to be able to reclaim it. What stopped you from going that
> route with the network subsystem? (too much churn, or something
> fundamental?)
That sounds very right aside from the global reserve. A given subsystem
may exist in multiple instances and serve sub partitions of the system.
F.e. there may be a network card on node 5 and a job running on nodes 3-7
and another netwwork card on node 15 with the corresponding nodes 13-17
doing I/O through it.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists